Introduction

In its judgment No. 96 of 3 July 2025, the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the constitutional legitimacy challenges concerning Article 14.2 of Legislative Decree No. 286 of 1998 (commonly referred to as the Consolidated Immigration Act), raised with reference to articles 13.2, 117.1, and articles 2, 3, 10.2, 24, 25.1, 32, and 111.1 of the Italian Constitution. Although the challenges were ruled inadmissible, the Court considered the current legislation on detention in CPRs to be in violation of the absolute legal reservation in matters of personal liberty, as prescribed by Article 13 of the Constitution, and urged the legislator to intervene.

This judgment brings attention to the conditions of individuals detained in CPRs in Italy. The Constitutional Court found the existing regulation insufficient in governing the deprivation of liberty for those subjected to expulsion orders, even though it did not find the relevant legal provision to be unconstitutional.

Repatriation Detention Centres in Italy: Establishment and Operation

Judgment No. 96 is part of the broader legislative evolution concerning the establishment and operation of CPRs, underlining the presence of a regulatory gap regarding the “modes” of detention within these centres.

Repatriation Detention Centres are administrative detention facilities where individuals subject to expulsion or rejection orders are held due to the lack of regular permits to remain on Italian soil. There are currently ten active CPRs in Italy, located throughout the country:

• Bari Palese (Apulia)
• Brindisi, Restinco (Apulia)
• Caltanissetta, Pian del Lago (Sicily)
• Gorizia, Gradisca d'Isonzo (Friuli Venezia Giulia)
• Macomer, Nuoro (Sardinia)
• Via Corelli, Milan (Lombardy)
• Palazzo San Gervasio, Potenza (Basilicata)
• Ponte Galeria, Rome (Lazio)
• Corso Brunelleschi, Turin (Piedmont)
• Milo, Trapani (Sicily)

According to Article 14 of the Consolidated Immigration Act, CPRs hold individuals who entered Italy irregularly and did not apply for international protection or do not qualify for it, or who reside in Italy without a valid residence permit. Their detention is intended to facilitate enforcement of the expulsion order by the authorities. CPRs have been subject to various legislative amendments aimed at streamlining repatriation and expulsion procedures.

Detention in the nearest CPR is ordered by the Chief of Police (questore) when immediate removal is not possible and only for the time necessary to carry out the expulsion. The measure must be validated by the Justice of the Peace within 48 hours, whose role is to verify the legitimacy of the personal liberty restriction. The centres are managed by the local Prefectures, which assign service provision to third parties (including private entities) through public tenders.

CPRs were originally established by Article 12 of Law No. 40 of 6 March 1998 (the so-called Turco-Napolitano Law). This law provided for the detention of foreigners when immediate expulsion was not feasible due to the need for identity verification, obtaining travel documents, providing medical care, or awaiting available transportation. Initially, detention could last up to 20 days, extendable by an additional 10 upon request of the questore and decision by the judge.

The centres were later renamed Identification and Expulsion Centres by Law No. 189 of 30 July 2002 (the so-called Bossi-Fini Law), which extended the detention period to 60 days. Law No. 94 of 15 July 2009 (Public Security Provisions) further extended the maximum duration to 180 days.

With Decree-Law No. 13 of 17 February 2017 (Minniti-Orlando Decree), the centres assumed their current name, CPRs, and a plan for expansion and territorial distribution was introduced. Subsequent legislative measures, including Decree-Law No. 113 of 4 October 2018 (the Salvini Decree) and Decree-Law No. 130 of 21 October 2020 (the Lamorgese Decree), set a base detention limit of 90 days, extendable by 30-day periods up to a maximum of 180 days.

The latest modifications stem from Decree-Law No. 20 of 10 March 2023 (“Urgent provisions on legal entry flows of foreign workers and on preventing and combating irregular immigration”), which extended the possible prolongation of detention from 30 to 45 days for nationals of countries with which Italy has repatriation agreements.

The Constitutional Court’s Inadmissibility Ruling

On 3 July 2025, with judgment No. 96, the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the constitutional legitimacy questions concerning Article 14.2 of the Consolidated Immigration Act, raised with reference to Articles 13.2, 117.1, and Articles 2, 3, 10.2, 24, 25.1, 32, and 111.1 of the Constitution.
The Justice of the Peace of Rome, Foreigners Section, raised the constitutional issues during a validation proceeding for the detention of an individual in a CPR, as ordered by the questore under the challenged provision.

According to the judge, Article 14.2 raises constitutional concerns because the “modes” of detention are regulated through subordinate sources, whereas Article 13 of the Constitution requires that restrictions on personal liberty be defined by law. Thus, the judge considered herself unable to validate the detention order due to the “obvious relevance” of the constitutional issues.

The order submitted to the Court is divided into two parts. The first finds a constitutional conflict with Article 13.2 and Article 117.1 of the Constitution, the latter being related to Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (Right to liberty and security). Article 13.2 of the Constitution states that deprivation of personal liberty must be ordered by a judicial authority and provided by law. The judge argued that Article 14.2 fails to meet the absolute legal reservation, as it does not precisely regulate the procedures for detaining individuals in CPRs or safeguard the detainees’ rights and protections.

Instead, Article 14.2 refers to Article 21.8 of Presidential Decree No. 394 of 31 August 1999, which is a sub-legislative source. Article 117.1 requires all Italian laws to comply with international obligations, including the ECHR, which permits deprivation of liberty only “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law.”

In the second part, the judge contends that Article 14.2 is inconsistent with Articles 2, 3, 10.2, 24, 25.1, 32, and 111.1 of the Constitution because the conditions of detention in CPRs should be aligned with those for penal detention in prisons. However, CPR detainees have fewer protections regarding fundamental rights such as health care and access to legal remedies, even though both situations involve deprivation of liberty.

In conclusion, the judge believes she cannot validate the detention due to a legal void that, under the Constitution, must be filled by a primary law, currently absent, since the existing provision refers to a presidential decree.

Several organizations participated in the case as amici curiae before the Constitutional Court, including: Antigone Onlus, the Academy of Law and Migration (ADiM), the National Guarantor for the Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty, the Guarantor for Persons Subject to Restrictive Measures of the Lazio Region and of the City of Rome, the Italian Society of Migration Medicine (SIMM), Arci APS, the Italian Coalition for Civil Liberties and Rights (CILD), and the Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration (ASGI). All expressed support for a finding of unconstitutionality.

They raised concerns about the detention methods in CPRs, as governed “only by sub-legislative provisions” (ASGI), and highlighted discrepancies between the rights afforded to prison inmates and those detained in CPRs. They also noted the absence of a designated judge to assess potential human rights violations. All agreed on the need for a primary law ensuring that the absolute legal reservation under Article 13 of the Constitution is respected, with legislation clearly defining “the modalities of exercise and protection, both administrative and judicial, of fundamental rights” (Antigone Onlus).

Finally, the Court examined Article 14.2 of the Consolidated Immigration Act and Article 21.8 of Presidential Decree No. 394 of 1999, which authorizes the Prefect to adopt “strictly necessary measures to ensure the safety of persons and provide basic services.” These are executed according to directives from the Ministry of the Interior.

The Court found this legislative framework generally legitimate and therefore dismissed the constitutional questions as inadmissible. In other words, the Constitutional Court, in the position of having to assess whether the provisions brought to its attention were in conformity with the Constitution, deemed the questions inadmissible in the sense that the challenged norms do not, in themselves, violate the Constitution.

Nevertheless, the Court acknowledged that there is indeed a shortfall regarding the absolute legal reservation set by Article 13.2. The current provisions rely on sub-legislative and administrative acts to define how personal liberty is restricted, something only Parliament can lawfully establish.

The Court emphasized that deprivation of liberty constitutes a “physical subjugation to the power of another,” and the law must define not only the cases but also the methods of such restriction. Article 21.8 of the Decree does not comply with the constitutional requirement, as it delegates this regulation to lower-level administrative norms.

The Constitutional Court cannot address this legislative gap itself; it is up to the Parliament to enact a law that clearly regulates the modes of detention and the associated fundamental rights protections in CPRs.

Moreover, the Court referred to ECtHR case law (e.g., Khlaifia and Others v. Italy), stressing the need for clarity in domestic legal provisions regarding detention conditions and the right of detainees to seek compensation for unlawful detention (Mansouri v. Italy), citing Articles 2043 of the Civil Code and 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, the constitutional references also extend to Articles 24 and 111.

Finally, the Court urged the legislator to adopt proper legislation on detention modalities within CPRs, to guarantee an “immediate and effective procedural safeguard” and judicial access for detainees seeking to protect their rights.

CPRs: Growing Concerns

With judgment No. 96 of 3 July 2025, the Constitutional Court addressed a highly significant issue within the legal framework for managing migration in Italy. The questions of constitutional legitimacy were declared inadmissible because the Court, by mandate, cannot legislate, that power lies exclusively with Parliament as an expression of the people’s will.

Nonetheless, the Court clearly intended to urge the legislator to fill the serious legal void that currently makes the detention of migrants in CPRs inconsistent with both the Constitution and the ECHR.

Numerous reports from associations and independent bodies have denounced the grave violations of fundamental rights occurring within CPRs and criticised the inadequacy of the current legal framework in providing effective protection for detainees.

On 13 December 2024, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (CPT) published a report following an ad hoc visit that year to the CPRs in Milan, Gradisca, Potenza, and Rome. The Committee found serious shortcomings concerning legal safeguards, medical care (delegated to private companies), architectural conditions, and management transparency, concluding that the CPR system is wholly inadequate to meet the needs of detainees.

Although the ruling had no direct impact on the constitutionality of Article 14(2) of the Consolidated Immigration Act, it may affect future validation decisions and should especially serve as a stimulus for Parliament to legislate in this area. Civil society, which has long mobilised against the current detention regime for migrants, now has another strong basis to increase pressure on the competent authorities.